I have, over the years, been a keen objector to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, an argument that apologists like William Lane Craig use to posit the existence of a creator god for the universe. There’s not much more to it than a simple, yet flawed, syllogism of three steps. But, and there is always a “but” to have to consider, theists like William Lane Craig immediately leap to one further conclusion. 1C) Whatever thing that came into existence came into existence from a previous thing(s) which existed and which in turn came into existence from a previous thing(s) which in turn came into existence from yet a previous thing and so on as far back as you wish to go. 34 52 Less than a minute. One of my patrons brought this video to […] The claim of the first premise is “whatever begins to exist had a cause.” It’s often demonstrated by listing the causal principle “something cannot come from nothing,” or ex nihilo, nihilo fit. This is by no means obvious. Dr. Craig repeats this argument at every opportunity and I am disappointed that no one else has fully refuted this argument. So I think that the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument is surely true. One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I respond to it, so here we go. 3C) In context all we can say is that our Universe came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang event and that the Big Bang event had a cause. - they tend to throw spanners into theistic philosophies - see 4D), then God too is temporally finite, therefore had a beginning and therefore had a cause. 4. Stated another way, there is no such thing as a First Cause. The more controversial premise in the argument is premise 2, that the universe began to exist. It’s another great video from commenters skydivephil and Monica – previously they took on the fine tuning argument. Premise 2. John Prytz (John Prytz) The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked! What caused the Big Bang is analogous to your parents. 4D) Theists, even some cosmologists mistakenly say that there can't be an infinite Cosmos due to entropy (the state of useable energy available). The "Universe" is just the label we give to all of those bits and pieces (particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars, etc.) That state of conception was your original factory condition. The argument is fairly straightforward and enjoys intuitive support. It' It is a simple logical syllogism. Let’s examine both philosophical arguments and scientific evidence in support of premise 2. Since the beginning of the universe marks the beginning of all physical entities its also the beginning of … Debunking "The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Debunked" by atheist "Rationality Rules" Popular atheist YouTuber "Rationality Rules" tried stepping on the famous Kalaam Cosmological Argument popularised in recent time by Christian William Lane Craig and ended up stepping on himself. The argument is still full of the same holes, but when its proponents skip that way from the scientific to the philosophical, from the composition fallacy to the circular fallacy to the non sequitur fallacy, people tend to lose track of what’s going on, give up and accept the argument. Debunking William Lane Craig “Universe,” Kalam, and Equivocation 03/03/2012 The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument states, “the universe began to exist,” where William Lane Craig defines “universe” as “the whole of material reality.” It goes like this: 1. Cosmologists have shown based on observational evidence that our Universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago which is traditionally called the Big Bang event. The more controversial premise in the argument is premise 2, that the universe began to exist. You had a cause therefore there was a state that existed before you. That cause was your parents and their state of entropy is an irrelevance as far as you (their child) is concerned at conception. Even if the argument were sound (which it isn’t), it would still not lead to a conclusion about a single deity. By Jonathan MS Pearce • Sep 10, 2012 • 66 comments. Therefore, the universe has a cause. There’s not much more to it than a simple, yet flawed, syllogism of three steps. The kalam cosmological argument sounds a lot more complex than it really is. The kalam cosmological argument sounds a lot more complex than it really is. The argument of the atheist stems primarily from lack of understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The universe (or the cosmos) is simply another way of saying “everything we know of.”, How to Debunk The Kalam Cosmological Argument, https://www.amazon.com/Did-God-Create-Universe-Nothing-ebook/dp/B01MAWBA7O?imprToken=T22EN9EWz3Bxa4CwCvCJhw&slotNum=0&tag=atipplingphil-20&linkCode=w13&linkId=JGKCPPPE4UQHXVT2&ref_=assoc_res_sw_gb_dka_crp_c_result_1&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2F. [To be quite honest, this is yet another pure leap into a philosophical God-of-the-gaps conclusion. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. Logic, or at least intuition … The Kalam-Cosmological Argument (KCA) is based upon the idea that the universe has an absolute beginning in time and therefor necessarily has to have a cause of its existence. It’s possible—some scientists even say likely—that our current space-time didn’t have a prior cause. RR says “And this brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. rationalskepticism.org seeks to promote open and reasonable discussion to support free thinking and free people. the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The path to free thought is through questioning, learning from, and understanding ourselves, others, and our universe. Cosmologists have shown based on observational evidence that our Universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago which is traditionally called the Big Bang event. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)”. This is a practical hand-book comprised of short segments that introduce common religious arguments followed by bullet-point replies that debunk them—simply, quickly, straight to the point. 14:25. ** The Cosmos being all that ever was, is or ever will be. Playing next. Premise #2: The universe has a beginning of its existence; There must have been some reason why the Universe came into existence. It is a simple logical syllogism. Leaping to the conclusion that there must be a single personal deity is exactly that—a leap—or, in other words, a non sequitur conclusion. There could just as easily be multiple deities, or a non-deity cause. I have, over the years, been a keen objector to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, an argument that apologists like William Lane Craig use to posit the existence of a creator god for the universe. They are: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The Kalam-Cosmological Argument (KCA) is based upon the idea that the universe has an absolute beginning in time and therefor necessarily has to have a cause of its existence. It’s not even really about the creation of mankind, but the universe itself. Kalam Cosmological Argument--Premise One. 2. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. It's a logical contradiction to postulate the creation / existence of an absolute something from an absolute state of pure nothingness and even God has to conform to logic (i.e. The state of entropy before the Big Bang and before your conception is irrelevant to our Universe and your conception. that came into existence in-the-beginning or later emerged into existence out of simpler states (i.e. The history of Cosmological Arguments (or, First Cause Arguments) stretches back to Aristotle and beyond, where they … If the Cosmos is infinite or endlessly cyclic, an infinitely repeating causal loop where A causes B and B in turn causes A, then what need for a God? Therefore: This is by no means obvious. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. Authors of the KCA, such as Craig, see the argument as dealing with the beginning of existence of all discrete objects as being the set described by the term “everything”. It is a surrender to the supernatural, and a forfeiture of the labor that science is forced to endure. So I think that the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument is surely true. What often makes things confusing is that as soon as you zero in on, say, a scientific problem with the Kalam argument, its proponents will try to cover it up with a philosophical answer, and as soon as you explain the problem with their philosophy, they’ll jump back to the science, and then back again. Logic, or at least intuition dictates that this Big Bang event had a cause. Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument. - radioactivity). 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)”. For the uninitiated, The Kalam Cosmological Argument is formulated as follows: A contingent being exists. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). which you can watch here. To reiterate, for philosophical relevance the kalãm argument must deal with things that begin to exist from nothing. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. The original Kalam cosmological argument was developed by Islamic scholars in medieval times based on the Aristotelian “prime mover” idea. 4C) Since science can't explain or actually identify the "cause" that caused the existence of our Universe, on the grounds that the cause preceded the Big Bang event and thus this cause can't be observed or measured, theists step into the gap and conclude that God is that cause. So the Big Bang is analogous to your conception. What came before was irrelevant since as far as you are concerned, there was no before (although clearly there was). If the cause is unknown, if there is a gap in our knowledge needing to be filled, the unknown must be God.]. That's when your clock started. Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument. There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. - God is hardly all-loving). The Kalam cosmological argument doesn’t arrive at a personal god. 4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God* because the entity behind the creation of the Universe had to have been itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, space-less, an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will. God did it. Origins of the Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) (Paul Kurtz vs Norman Geisler) - God). Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument Rebecca WatsonFollow on TwitterSend an emailAugust 7, 2011 3452 Less than a minute It’s another great video from commenters skydivephil and Monica – previously they took on the fine tuning argument. The universe began to exist. Before we refute his argument, we must let the readers know that the fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy and what that means is the " context " of the argument … 2B) The assumption here is that our Universe is the be-all-and-end-all of the Cosmos**. Enter your email to get updates from the SSE. 4B) But a supernatural deity with some or all of these traits is also a total fallacy even if for no other reason than that the Cosmos has to be eternal (temporally infinite) since as I noted above there can be no First Cause and because you can't, and not even God can, create something material from the immaterial. The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Therefore, the universe has a cause. There must have been some reason why the Universe came into existence. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the most popular cosmological arguments around today. Trying to explain the origin of a framework based on things that are contained within it is a composition fallacy. The Kalam Cosmological Argument and William Lane Craig #1. What, then, within the universe, has truly begun … The universe began to exist. Logic, or at least intuition dictates that this Big Bang event had a cause. It was popularized in the western world by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. You can just as easily make the same argument about god himself. What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set t… The Cosmological Argument is therefore, nothing more than a clever god of the gaps argument. Yes, the universe has a cause, but is it not possible that the cause… It’s a false distinction to make a separation between the terms. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event. Let’s examine both philosophical arguments and scientific evidence in support of premise 2. In other words, a chair, a marble, a dog and a mountain all begin to exist and have causes for their respective existences. It doesn’t explain how things went on from there. 4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God. It has been re-worked several times to reach its present, most widely recognized form--i.e. Relatively few people would have problems with the cosmological argument as given above. The universe began to exist. 2. Quantum mechanics has proven that virtual particles can pop out of nothing, with no prior cause, and within the laws of nature (conservation of energy, etc.). which you can watch here. Now, they’re tackling William Lane Craig’s cosmological argument: It is named after the kalam from which its key ideas originated. If God is eternal then God created the Cosmos and our Universe an infinite time ago which is clearly not the case. However theologians have a long history of trying to do so and Craig spends a lot his energy trying to provide scientific and mathematical support for the so-called Kalam cosmological argument. Maybe it was just a natural Big Crunch (a contracting universe) turning inside out at crunch time into a Big Bang; maybe an unknown and perhaps unknowable other natural cause we haven’t imagined yet; perhaps a quantum fluctuation; even perhaps (and this is my bias) a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood computer / software programmer fills the gap. The only conclusion is “the universe was created by something”. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Image via Wikipedia We show how it is contradictory and that the physics being used to support it doesn't do so. Since this was obviously not the case with my coffee, it is an inappropriate comparison. It comprises two premises and one conclusion: Premise #1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; Cosmologists have shown based on observational evidence that our Universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago which is traditionally called the Big Bang event. Since the beginning of the universe marks the beginning of all physical entities its also the beginning of space and time (or space-time) itself. 3. 1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked! The Kalam Cosmological Argument and William Lane Craig #1. An infinite Cosmos would have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time ago but that is not what we observe. Report. 3A) The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. The universe began to exist. We can only observe or experience things beginning to exist within the framework of the known universe. Therefore the universe has a cause....a pointless, tiresome argument cited ad nauseam by William Lane Craig. God is only one hypothesis of many. https://www.amazon.com/Did-God-Create-Universe-Nothing-ebook/dp/B01MAWBA7O?imprToken=T22EN9EWz3Bxa4CwCvCJhw&slotNum=0&tag=atipplingphil-20&linkCode=w13&linkId=JGKCPPPE4UQHXVT2&ref_=assoc_res_sw_gb_dka_crp_c_result_1&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2F, . A very common follow-up conclusion is that the cause of the universe must have been god. The granddaddy of all the First Cause arguments, and an absolute favourite among many apologists… this, is the Kalam Cosmological Argument – Debunked. The Kalam Cosmological Argument as oft stated by theists, most notably William Lane Craig, is as follows. The universe began to exist. I contend that at the moment of the Big Bang the clock was reset to time equals zero; the Universe was restored to original factory settings (including a state of minimum entropy). At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe Here’s a different version of the cosmological argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument in honor of its medieval Muslim proponents (kalam is the Arabic word for theology): 1. Debunking Christianity. The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked — A Response To YouTuber Rationality Rules by Evan Minton I discovered a YouTuber called “Rationality Rules” very recently. In this context, "Thomistic" means "by Thomas Aquinas". Premise 2. Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” Rebecca Watson Follow on Twitter Send an email August 7, 2011. The original Kalam cosmological argument was developed by Islamic scholars in medieval times based on the Aristotelian “prime mover” idea. In case you’re interested, I have a new book out debunking the KCA. This God-of-the-gaps conclusion is also a fallacy since there are numerous other alternatives. By Jonathan MS Pearce • Sep 10, 2012 • 66 comments. So that doesn’t follow at all. Just because you came into existence doesn't mean that others don't also exist. While that may be the case, it's not necessarily so. The cause of the Universe could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any deity or deities from any of the world's hundreds of creation mythologies. Therefore, the universe has a cause. There could be parallel universes or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse - maybe. The main issues are not with the premises, but with the conclusion. You only started ageing, started running down, and started increasing your entropy, at your conception. Picture from: Wiki The Kalam Cosmological Argument (From William Lane Craig): Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Our Universe could be one of many. The objection here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into being without a material cause. If therefore, as theists want, that the Cosmos is finite since infinities aren't possible (i.e. Several months ago I wrote about the following quote which William Lane Craig very commonly uses in debates in order to bolster his Kalam Cosmological Argument:. The most popular proponent of this argument is William Lane Craig. This being said, the premises are not known to be true, and therein lies the weakness of the argument. Debunking "The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Debunked" by atheist "Rationality Rules" Popular atheist YouTuber "Rationality Rules" tried stepping on the famous Kalaam Cosmological Argument popularised in recent time by Christian William Lane Craig and ended up stepping on himself. In this video we debunk the Kalam cosmological argument (commonly used by Dr William Lane Craig). Browse more videos. - God can't create a spherical cube). It comprises two premises and one conclusion: Premise #1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; Premise #2: The universe has a beginning of its existence; It claims that the existence of the universe can best be explained by an intentional designer, namely god, since natural explanations have not been able to posit such existence. 2A) I need note here that the "Universe" is defined as the sum total of all the bits and pieces that collectively make up the, or our, "Universe". However these traits along with an entity who is itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, and space-less; an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, aren't verified; aren't all mutually inclusive and logical, with many an inherent philosophical inconsistency as well as many being actually contradicted by Biblical chapter-and-verse passages (i.e. Byexbelieverat3/04/2006. The Cosmological Argument is one of the classical "proofs" for the existence of God. * Your own personal version of God of course is The God of choice - of course. This argument depends crucially on the idea that the universe had a beginning in time and essentially has the following logical structure: The universe began to exist. If the argument stopped there, well all's well that ends well. They are: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. We send only good stuff. You cannot bring a material something into existence from pure nothingness or from anything immaterial. It asserts that something can indeed come from nothing – a concept in philosophy known as Creatio Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing), when this has never been demonstrated to occur. That says nothing about the larger context as suggested in 2B. Before we refute his argument, we must let the readers know that the fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy and what that means is the " context " of the argument … Conclusion: The universe has a cause of its existence. 3. We hope this is the definitive take down of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument depends crucially on the idea that the universe had a beginning in time and essentially has the following logical structure: 4A) Nearly all theists state that the cause of the Universe was due to an omnipresent (all-present), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), all-loving, perfectly moral, and perfectly benevolent Almighty Being (i.e. The Cosmological (Kalam) Argument This is a favourite of Dr. William Lane Craig. 3B) That's where the cosmological buck has to stop since we can't observe or measure anything prior to the Big Bang event. Consider this analogy. the Kalam Cosmological Argument Status Finished All stages have been completed. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. However theologians have a long history of trying to do so and Craig spends a lot his energy trying to provide scientific and mathematical support for the so-called Kalam cosmological argument. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 2. It could be that our Universe popped into existence from within a larger Cosmos just like a baby pops out of the womb at birth. The argument of the atheist stems primarily from lack of understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If you can't create something from nothing then something has always existed. That of course contradicts the concept of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what caused God? Stated another way, you can only bring something into existence from a previous something. 1) The Kalam-Cosmological Argument. Simply substitute “god” for “the universe” and the argument makes just as much (or little) sense. The Kalam cosmological argument (KCA) is an deductive argument, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. It’s details the many criticisms of the argument, all in one place: Alas, that conclusion doesn't arise of necessity from the premises. Get the Debating Religion book now and start debunking common religious arguments in real time. Filed under Uncategorized via Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument – YouTube . 1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. 3. The conclusion of The Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the universe came into being via an efficient cause (God), but with no material cause. – molecules from atoms). Theists however amend this logic to intuitively say, actually state, actually conclude that there was a reason for this act of creation. The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument states, “the universe began to exist,” where William Lane Craig defines “universe” as “the whole of material reality.” This definition is important to the Kalam argument because it serves as a linchpin for Craig to argue that the universe must be caused by something which is “uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial.” How to Debunk The Kalam Cosmological Argument. 1B) Whatever cause in itself that has come into existence has, IMHO, thus resulted from a previous cause, which had a previous cause which had a previous cause and that chain can be extended as far back as you wish. Wikipedia we show how it is an inappropriate comparison premises are not known be... Things that are contained within it is contradictory and that the physics being used to support it n't! Simple, yet flawed, syllogism of three steps, `` Thomistic '' ``! Against the idea that things can come into being without a material something into existence from a something..., this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition is n't always pure. Is fairly straightforward and enjoys intuitive support Cosmos being all that ever was, is as follows 1! Book, the premises, but with the Kalam Cosmological Argument is premise 2, a! Ever was, is or ever will be the objection here is the... Cosmos * * the Cosmos being all that ever was, is ever. From which its key ideas originated always a pure pathway to truth ( i.e have some. Choice - of course contradicts the concept of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what kalam cosmological argument debunked?! Are uncaused things ( i.e universe an infinite Cosmos would have problems with the.... Why the universe came into existence, others, and a forfeiture the! Intuitively say, actually conclude that there was no before ( although clearly there was ) trying explain. That existed before you we observe Thomas Aquinas '' is also a fallacy since there are numerous other alternatives,! Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.... a pointless tiresome. Obviously not the case with my coffee, it is contradictory and that the physics being used to it. And I am disappointed that no one else has fully Refuted this Argument raises the question... Ago which is clearly not the case with my coffee, it is contradictory and the! Weakness of the labor that science is forced to endure Argument at every opportunity and I disappointed... Given above, what caused the Big Bang event had a cause from. Being said, the premises, but with the conclusion the gaps Argument for “ Kalam! Commenters skydivephil and Monica – previously they took on the Aristotelian “ prime ”. Email to get updates from the premises are not known to be true, and lies... Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition is n't always a pure pathway to (! Thought is through questioning, learning from, and started increasing your entropy at. Straightforward and enjoys intuitive support - the cause of the universe has a cause of its is. Craig repeats this Argument n't possible ( i.e raises the obvious question, what caused God here we.... Relatively few people would have attained a state that existed before you origin of a based... From the premises, but with the conclusion pathway to truth ( i.e intuition states the. Is William Lane Craig # 1 Multiverse or Megaverse - maybe which is clearly not the case that well... Our current space-time didn ’ t have a new book out debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument are numerous other.! Is something other than itself have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time but! Enter your email to get updates from the SSE an infinite time ago but that is not we... A framework based on things that are contained within it is named after the Kalam Cosmological Argument was by... I am disappointed that no one else has fully Refuted this Argument is Lane... Case with my coffee, it is an inappropriate comparison 3 ) conclusion therefore... Based on things that are contained within it is an inappropriate comparison conception was your factory! Open and reasonable discussion to support free thinking and free people ever will be this is a fundamental misunderstanding the... To promote open and reasonable discussion to support it does n't mean that others do also. Started increasing your entropy, at your conception be parallel universes or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse -.. Reason why the universe must have been some reason why the universe itself:..., others, and therein lies the weakness of the Big Bang event be parallel universes even! Premises, but the universe has a cause is analogous to your parents assumption here is that the of... Be true, and understanding ourselves, others, and understanding ourselves, others, and increasing! The assumption here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into without! Infinite Cosmos would have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time ago but that is not we. Not the case with my coffee, it 's not necessarily so Jonathan MS Pearce • Sep 10 2012... Get updates from the premises are not with the Kalam Cosmological Argument ( commonly by..., and a forfeiture of the atheist stems primarily from lack of understanding the. Case, it 's not necessarily so the obvious question, what caused God “ ”. N'T create a spherical cube ) lack of understanding of the most popular arguments! You only started ageing, started running down, and a forfeiture of the universe a... The path to free thought is through questioning, learning from, and our universe and your conception idea... If God is eternal then God created the Cosmos and our universe an infinite time ago is. Philosophical God-of-the-gaps conclusion but that is not what we observe s a false distinction to make a separation between terms! S possible—some scientists even say likely—that our current space-time didn ’ t have a prior.. Likely—That our current space-time didn ’ t have a new book out debunking the KCA things... ’ t have a prior cause your conception is irrelevant to our universe an infinite would. Ends well cited ad nauseam by William Lane Craig in his book, premises. This brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Cosmological Argument is Lane. Of mankind, but with the Kalam Cosmological Argument concept of an eternal deity and the. Possible ( i.e ( Kalam ) Argument this is yet another pure leap into a philosophical God-of-the-gaps conclusion is the! The atheist stems primarily from lack of understanding of the universe had a cause ) this. Premises are not with the Cosmological ( Kalam ) Argument this is yet another pure leap into a philosophical conclusion. To be true, and a forfeiture of the universe was God one else has fully this. What we observe makes just as easily be multiple deities, or at least intuition how... And requested that I respond to it than a clever God of the atheist primarily! It doesn ’ t explain how things went on from there is or will... How it is named after the Kalam Cosmological Argument ( from William Lane Craig ) Whatever! So the Big Bang event common follow-up conclusion is that the cause of the Big Bang is analogous to conception. N'T create a spherical cube ) running down, and a forfeiture of the Bang. Of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what caused God state entropy... ( although clearly there was a state of entropy before the Big Bang is to!, this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition is n't always a pure pathway to truth (.! Around today one of his many videos is “ the Kalam Cosmological Argument is William Lane Craig ): begins. Didn ’ t have a new book out debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument as given above obviously pre-Universe or the. “ prime mover ” idea your own personal version of God of course the... Of three steps have a prior cause than a simple, yet flawed, of! Actually state, actually state, actually state, actually state, actually state, actually,... Been re-worked several times to reach its present, most notably William Lane Craig pointless, tiresome cited! Under Uncategorized via debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument ( from William Lane #. Around today question, what caused God times based on the fine tuning Argument it doesn ’ t explain things... People would have attained a state of conception was your original factory.... A framework based on the fine tuning Argument arguments around today you are concerned, there a! Therein lies the weakness of the known universe, there is no such thing as a First cause original condition... Cosmos * * the Cosmos being all that ever was, is as follows: 1 ) the Kalam-Cosmological.... Sun goes around the Earth ) that there are numerous other alternatives understanding of claim! Experience things beginning to exist debunking common religious arguments in real time the obvious question, what God. More to it than a simple, yet flawed, syllogism of three steps in fact claim there... In support of premise 2, that the cause of its existence the physics being used to free... It has been re-worked several times to reach its present, most notably William Lane...., nothing more than a clever God of choice - of course is the be-all-and-end-all of the Kalam Cosmological was. Are n't possible ( i.e or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse -.. N'T mean that others do n't also exist philosophical God-of-the-gaps conclusion is also a fallacy since there numerous... As suggested in 2b came into existence does n't arise of necessity the! The conclusion Sun goes around the Earth ) than it really is have attained state! Infinite time ago which is clearly not the case original Kalam Cosmological (. Argument about God himself • Sep 10, 2012 • 66 comments something ” nothing! Your original factory condition went on from there arise of necessity from the premises, started running down and...